Barack Obama‘s probably feeling pretty confident right now – he’s won the last eleven primaries, has eaten into Hillary Clinton‘s base and keeps climbing in national numbers. It seems the Senator’s just two states away from clinching the Democratic presidential nomination. If he wins in Texas and Ohio on Tuesday – well, even Bill admits that Hillary’s campaign’s not going to make it.

One can’t get lazy, of course, which may explain why he’s now placing the above “generic” LGBT ad in gay newspapers in Ohio and Texas. Oh yeah, Obama’s definitely stamping on Clinton’s queer territory. It’s a crazy strategy, yes, and may just push Obama over the edge…
Obama’s campaign has been ramping up the gay effort down South – and not just with the advertisement. Obama campaigner Eric Stern told journalist Lisa Keen that he and his allies are all about the Texans:

Stern says he has been â€œtaskedâ€ by the Obama campaign to â€œcreate and lead LGBT steering committees in Ohio and Texas.â€ Stern and a small group of LGBT volunteers are planning events in gay dense cities of both states â€“not to raise money for Obama, said Stern, but â€œjust to talk to LGBT voters about why to support Obama.â€

Obama LGBT Policy Council co-chair Stampp Corbin also told our editor that the campaign has been doing the “old-fashioned thing,” which is going to gay spaces and spreading the message.

Corbin also had this to say about the posters:

What really makes theses ads important, is the fact that it is the first time in any presidential campaign, let alone a primary, for there to be an LGBT specific message in an ad. There were LGBT press ad buys in 2004 but the message was the same message being placed in traditional media. These ads further underscore the Senator’s commitment of inclusion and his belief that the LGBT community is a critical part of the American fabric.

Rival Hillary Clinton‘s office, meanwhile, doesn’t seem to be as active in pursuing the gay vote. Keen writes that she called the Senator’s offices for comment and got no reply. Could it be Clinton took the once loyal gays for granted? Could it be her disinterest is mutual? Maybe in Texas…

A recent Federal Election Committee donation dissection shows that the former first lady’s lacking a little lavender love in the Lone Star state: “The latest Federal Elections Commission report shows Obama with only a small advantage over Clinton in gay dense zip codes in Texas â€“ 52 percent versus 48 percent.” Sure, Clinton may still be a gay favorite nationally, but Obama’s obviously gaining strength. A campaign staffer sent us some previously unreleased California numbers and Obama won in aome of the gayest regions: Obama won 53-to-44 in San Francisco and 52-to-44 in Almeda County. Don’t worry, Clinton supporters: your girl got West Hollywood and stands strong here in New York.

Meanwhile, over in Ohio, Obama’s not only placing the print ad, but has penned a very special op-ed. We’ve included a PDF of the entire message at the bottom of this post, but here’s a taste:

…I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.

While we don’t have any numbers on Ohio’s homos specifically, Obama’s gaining on Clinton’s total numbers there: “…Clintonâ€™s lead is now just five percentage points in Ohio, down from an eight-point advantage last week and fourteen points two weeks ago.”

It’s difficult to say whether Obama’s ads will have on any effect on Tuesday’s primaries – we’re not psychic! – but if gays are convinced he’s their man, then it could have an unexpected effect on delegate counts in both states. Keen, again:

Ordinary delegates are awarded not only based on which candidate wins the state, but based on who wins the Congressional district. That means Congressional Districts with heavily gay populations can influence the outcome in those districts. Patrick Shepherd, an Ohio gay activist supporting Obama, says the Buckeye State has â€œsubstantialâ€ LGBT populations in Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati, and â€œsolidâ€ communities in Toledo, Akron, and Canton.

Unlike Hillary, Obama has no problem campaigning with homophobes to court the anti-gay vote in the South. Or have we forgotten Donne McClurkin?

Not “closing your ears to those who still need to be convinced” is one thing. Giving a platform to those who profess hate just to win a few more votes, is another.

Feb 28, 2008 at 8:19 am · @Reply ·

Penny

Obama is about UNITY, ONE AMERICA…the way of the future.

Feb 28, 2008 at 8:35 am · @Reply ·

James

Hillary voiced her opposition to President Bush’s pardoning of Mr. Libby, she failed to voice her opposition to her husband as he handed out 140 Presidential Pardons on their last days in the White House. Is this the first-hand experience she garnered while she was in the White House?

According to Wikipedia, “In March 2000, Bill Clinton pardoned Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, owners of the carnival company United Shows International, for charges of bank fraud from a 1982 conviction (the couple were already out of jail, but the prior conviction prevented them from doing business transactions in certain states). First Lady Hillary Clinton’s youngest brother, Tony Rodham, was an acquaintance of the Gregorys, and had lobbied Clinton on their behalf.[11] In October 2006, the group Judicial Watch filed a request with the U.S. Justice Department for an investigation, alleging that Rodham had received $107,000 from the Gregorys for the pardons, in the form of loans that were never repaid, as part of a quid pro quo scheme.[12]”

How can we forget the substantial donations to the Clinton Library and Hillary’s senate Campaign by fugitive Mark Rich, who was pardoned by the Clintons.

Susan McDougal was pardoned for her role in the Whitewater scandal.

Roger Clinton, Bill’s half-brother was pardoned on drug charges.

Does the Pardon process work or is it shamefully abused? What are Obama’s thoughts on this topic?

Feb 28, 2008 at 8:45 am · @Reply ·

parsnip

It is absolutely disgraceful that any GLBT person/orginization would continue to endorse a family whose legacy, experience and leadership has given us DOMA as well as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell! Not to mention the dismantling of many social programs beneficial to the GLBT community. I should also mention that Senator Clinton, unlike Senator Obama, has made it very clear that she has no intention of repealing DOMA in itsâ€™ entirety. It also completely eludes me how you can be so irresponsible as to support someone who without reservation, openly accepted an endorsement from Ann Coulter. You know, the Ann Coulter who called John Edwards a “fa**ot” and Christians “perfected Jews” and the widows of the 911 victims “harpies”. We in the GLBT community should command a great deal more self respect than has been displayed here. Barack Obama has been the only candidate that I’ve heard, include the issues of Gays/Lesbians in his stump speeches:

oct 2007

“I have clearly stated my belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens. I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts of our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country.
I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin’s views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division.”
The granting of gay rights must trump personality, regional and racial preferences in order to acheive the legal protections the we GLBT people desperately deserve. We are so fortunate to have a presumptive democratic
nominee who has expressed as much concern for our rights as has Barack Obama.

Feb 28, 2008 at 9:07 am · @Reply ·

todd

They all come-a-courtin’ when they need votes. We invite them to our little parties and watch in amazement as they sell us down the river when they need to veer right to appeal to the masses? Didn’t Clinton tell Kerry to do that in 2004?

Feb 28, 2008 at 9:37 am · @Reply ·

Michael

I TRUST OBAMA. HE IS A GOOD PERSON WITH REAL VALUES.

When is the last time you could say that about ANY candidate for ANYTHING?

HE HAS MY VOTE!

Feb 28, 2008 at 9:45 am · @Reply ·

Michael

And also…..

AMEN PENNY!!!!!!!! I’m with you!

Feb 28, 2008 at 9:57 am · @Reply ·

ian

ok
sounds great
now what is he going to do to make that happen?
oh
i see
he wants gay votes to take more votes away from clinton
where were these statements when he was using donnie to court the african american religous vote
oh
it was nowhere
he talks a GREAT game but is just as much a politician as anyone else in htis race
i am so amazed that so many people feel he is somehow a messianic figure and a cure all to america’s ills
this just seems like more of the same
dont drink the kool aide
ask his campaign what he plans to actually do?
he did not have the strength of character to loose donnie when he wanted to use him
now he is using you
wake up
i dont think he’s a bad guy
but dont just accept anything he says at face value
look for some substance under his pro gay ads

Neither he nor Clinton will gives us marriage rights or even civil unions, as soon as they are elected, we will be pushed away. Better watch out for that bus!

Feb 28, 2008 at 10:53 am · @Reply ·

CitizenGeek

Aaaand I think I’ve just dropped my support for Hillary, in exchange for Obama. I guess that I was just blinded by the fact that Hillary has spoken to the HRC and marched in New York’s pride parade … but, really, she’s not the friend of the gay community that she makes herself out to be! She’s scared to bring up the issue of LGBT rights (unless, of course, she’s in front of a gay audience) while Obama regularly brings the issue up and this ad just makes it all the sweeter!

Obama all the way!

Feb 28, 2008 at 10:59 am · @Reply ·

hells kitchen guy

Obama-Hillary

Coke-Pepsi
Exxon-BP
T-Mobile-Verizon
…

Feb 28, 2008 at 11:47 am · @Reply ·

Hillary

Yes I am a gay woman,and yes I voted for Hillary. But, more importantly I would never vote for Obama if he were to win the nomination. I don’t know who his “Cronies” are. He hasn’t been in the lime light long enough. He admited yesterday that there is indeed Al-Kida in Iraq-yet he has no plan on how to handle the situation. Therefore if he wins I’m going with McCain- we may not have any rights, but at least we won’t be dead!

Feb 28, 2008 at 12:23 pm · @Reply ·

Kid A

Well, Hillary @ #12, I think it’s your responsibility to find out who his “cronies” are, if we all waited for candidates to lay themselves at our feet with policies and the like, we’d be waiting a long time…

You honestly think more people would die with Obama than McCain?

And no I’m not responding because you mentioned “Al-Kida.”

Feb 28, 2008 at 12:34 pm · @Reply ·

Dan

#12
That’s a fairly uninformed statement to make, don’t you think? He hasn’t been in the limelight long enough? McCain has PLENTY of limelight (see: Keating 5 Savings and Loan Scandal, Iraq War, etc etc.)
As for Hillary… She certainly has been in the limelight, but does that qualify her? I hear a lot about Hillary “deserving it” because “it’s her time”. What if she’s not the best woman for the job?
To vote republican without truly knowing who Obama is or what he stands for is sad and counterproductive. You may be “alive” (and I fail to see how Obama being elected would result in mass death), but to what end? Want to get married? Want equal rights as a woman and a lesbian? Want to see our troops come home, the dollar be worth the paper its printed on, and the world not hate the US? Do you research. Make your own decision, but at least make it an informed one.

Feb 28, 2008 at 12:40 pm · @Reply ·

steve

nice ad

Feb 28, 2008 at 12:47 pm · @Reply ·

blackiemiko

I will be voting for Obama in PA’s primary on April 22nd and in the General Election on 11/6.

Please put aside your differences between Hillary vs Barack. Either of them have much better positions then John. Also most of their positions are 93% similar.

Finally if a Democrat is elected to the Presidency they will be responsible for nominating 2, probably 3 new Supreme Court justices. Please think of the election in those broad terms.

Sixteen comments, and I can only find three that are real / relevant. The rest are the same comments that the same people cut-and-paste into every political discussion on here. You guys are wasting space, and really not convincing any of us.

As for Hillary being the gay candidate … maybe on the east coast, but I’m not sure where else. Here the queers were all Obama Obama Obama. A few of us liked Hillary … but an equal number liked McCain.

This ad? It captures the man, yeah? Sharp, pretty, too the point, but still lacking in content. I hope he wins, just to stop the in-fighting; and then I hope he grows some cojones.

Feb 28, 2008 at 1:56 pm · @Reply ·

Bosco

I will never vote for Obama.

Actions speak louder than words and he consistently has gay conversion ministers on his rally programs in the South.

Also, look into his record – he has ties to nuke Energy – major contributors and gave them special breaks while in ILL office.

You all will be sorry if he is elected – he is a homopobe who says anything to get your vote.

Y’all are deluded if you think ‘Bama has a better chance against the Republican machine than Hillary. McCain will be the next president thanks to your delusions.

Feb 28, 2008 at 4:48 pm · @Reply ·

Michael Bedwell

The ad image is cropped so you can’t really appreciate how the full layout makes it look like he’s gazing heavenward and, on first glance, that his hands are joined “in prayer.” I kid you not. And the “Op Ed” is just full of more smile fucking us about what “FULL” and “REAL” “equality” meansâ€”i.e., what HE thinks WE should accept it meaningâ€”and outright lies about what he’s said and done. The guy may have a skinny ass and not a muscle in his body but he has balls the size of Texas!

If Our New Messiah is so sincere about treating us with â€œdignity and respect,â€ then:

1. why did he throw us under the homohating bus being driven by Donnie McClurkin and pay for the gas? Honk if you love Jesus er Obama! So much for â€œdignity and respect.â€

2. why did he misrepresent his continuing SUPPORT FOR a stateâ€™s right to ban same gender relationships by any name? So much for â€œdignity and respect.â€

3. why did he MISREPRESENT the legal irrelevance of DOMA Section 2 which eliminatingâ€”according to his own Constitutional law professorâ€”would not help gays at the state level in any functional way? So much for â€œdignity and respect.â€

4. why was he apparently TOO BUSY running for US Senate to join as a sponsor of and fight for the LGBT rights bill in Illinois? So much for â€œdignity and respect.â€

5. why has he LIED repeatedly [LOGO forum; â€œMeet the Pressâ€; â€œThe Advocateâ€] and said he had cosponsored that LGBT rights bill AND â€œpassedâ€ it when HE WASNâ€™T EVEN STILL IN THE ILLINOIS SENATE when it was voted on? So much for â€œdignity and respect.â€

6. why was he unable to convince his homohating close friend, the Rev. & Sen. James Meeks, to vote for that LGBT rights bill? Did he even try? So much for â€œdignity and respect.â€

7. why does he want to ask the Pentagon about repealing DADT? What does he THINK theyâ€™ll say? So much for â€œdignity and respect.â€

8. why does he only want to increase AIDS funding by five billion dollars while Sen. Clinton wants to increase it by at least TWENTY billion dollars? So much for â€œdignity and respect.â€

9. why in his entire 64-page â€œBlueprint for CHANGE-Barack OBAMAâ€™S PLAN for Americaâ€ can no one find one sentence, one word, one syllable about ANY LGBT-related issue? So much for â€œdignity and respect.â€

10. while most candidates agreed that â€œmarriage equalityâ€ was a dog that would not hunt in this election, why is Obama the ONLY candidate to LECTURE US about how happy WE should be with HIS definition of â€œfull equality.â€ If theyâ€™re so good, so equal, Sen. Obama, would YOU trade YOUR MARRIAGE for our civil union? So much for â€œdignity and respect.â€

Feb 28, 2008 at 6:33 pm · @Reply ·

mjc

don’t trust any politician, you only think you can trust him because he hasn’t been around long enough for us to know why we should NOT trust him.

good for you barack, you know how to pander. an anti gay minister here, a ‘conservative christian’ flyer there, a pro working class flyer there, a gay ad here.

its all about votes people, just think of us as a target market.

lots of companies advertise with rainbows in their logos during pride month, in gay areas and gay publications ONLY.

come on. people love a pretty package, its a shame they can’t see there STILL is nothing in it.

Feb 28, 2008 at 7:02 pm · @Reply ·

Rich

I am HIV+ and before I cast my vote in California, I carefully reviewed both of the candidates policies with regard to HIV / AIDS. Hillary has a comprehensive, well thought out, and incredible plan to help not only the epidemic that Africa faces, but largely detailed in how she will help people here at home. I know this issue has lost a lot of coverage in the media, but it is a devastating disease that is still a major problem that destroys lives and communities all across America. Barack’s plan only speaks to Africa. He does not mention one plan on his website that deals with HIV or AIDS domestically.

Well I can tell you things are not fine domestically. I have been HIV+ for almost 13 years now, and I have seen a huge increase in young people at the Owen Clinic where I get my care. I am not one of the lucky guys who can tolerate the medicines well; I am disabled; and I am living on Social Security. I live in San Diego and it is difficult to find affordable housing, the quality of my health care is at an all time low, and the destructive policies of G.W. with regards to Medicare as well as Social Security have me under a lot of stress financially. However, I am not worried about myself, as much as I am about my brothers and sisters who have it worse. I am well educated and understand how to navigate through the system, and I am lucky to have good friends to help me. But others are not as fortunate. I see people slip into drug abuse to escape from their problems. I see people slip into homelessness due to a lack of finances and support. I see people who suffer so greatly from depression that they commit suicide. This problem is getting worse, and not better.

To my positive brothers and sisters (and family members) in states that have yet to vote: There is no doubt that Hillary is the candidate that speaks the loudest to everyone affected by HIV and AIDS. Give her your support and you will never be sorry.

Keep fighting Hillary, I’m still in your corner.

Feb 29, 2008 at 12:25 am · @Reply ·

Mr C

To be straight forward with all of you! The president is a figure. The congress is who makes the laws. So for some of you to say Iâ€™ll never vote for Barack Obama. Obviously you never were anyway. And to protest and go for McCain is like signing your own Death Certificate especially with those Supreme Court justices.

As long as our country is overwhelmingly hetero-sexual we as gays will always be persecuted. Donâ€™t ever look for gay rights not in this life however we should be afforded the same as everyone else.

Personally I am supporting Barack Obama because of the very thing he states â€œchangeâ€ itâ€™s what this country needs more than ever

And as a gay male before anyone can give our community anything. We need to understand our issues ad combat them before going after anyone else.
Unbelievable that HRC and other organizations is more concerned with gay marriage rather than finding a way to combat racism in the gay community yeah I said it

R-a-c-i-s-m

Until we learn accept, understand, and love each other. Donâ€™t look for ENDA, DOMA and anything else to go all the way through it isnâ€™t happening

Feb 29, 2008 at 2:47 am · @Reply ·

KB

I think that Barack Obama is the best choice. I am confident that he will surround himself with the Best of the Best to have a successful administration. We need unity, and I think he is determined to promote that tirelessly (especially if he picks Bloomberg as V.P.–you heard it here first!)

I think Hillary will reward too many of her (and Bill’s) cronies from the past for their support. I want some fresh blood up in that D.C. mess, okaaaay?

The Clinton-Obama tug-of-war is creepily parallel to the plotlines of the film ELECTION, starring Reese Witherspoon, Chris Klein, and Matthew Broderick. Check this out:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rleUPHX8yfM

And way too vague. What does all that hot air really mean (except “VOTE FOR ME”)

I don’t trust Obama. I think he will sell us out the first time the going gets tough.

But what else is new?

Feb 29, 2008 at 10:47 am · @Reply ·

M Shane

I still contend that Obama is in a true Catch 22 with regards to having on the one hand to not alienate Black voters because he and not Hillary is the “black candidate” and must pander to people he can probably not, on principle, tolerate. What if the women who were have been electing Hillary hated gay men because they wouldn’t fuck them. And Hillhad to sidle up to them, as a “woman ” candate. In fact I don’t think that he necessarily has that many religious fanatica= on his team, certainly not as many as Hillary: she has bee way ahead of him since day one on that count.
I think that he would be kidding himself if he thought he was going to be elected by many blacks. Many of them are voting republican. He’s not that dumb. He is smart enough to know that he can’t alienate black people and still be the” first black President “.

Feb 29, 2008 at 11:16 am · @Reply ·

Goon

The people who say they’d vote McCain over Obama – you’re not just ignoring ALL gay rights period, you’re voting against womens rights…

McCain, unlike Bush, WOULD swing Roe vs Wade through the supreme court appointees, and theres going to be a number of them over the next few years. Another Republican in the white house is simply not something we can afford.

As for attacking people Obama knows in the South, oh wow its the ‘six degrees of Barack Obama’ game again. Hillary has a racist supporter in Texas she wouldnt ‘reject and denounce’, McCain has John Hagee the minister who hates Jews, gays, Muslims, even Catholics…
if you were to hold Obama and Hillary responsible for every public and private supporter’s views, you’re putting way too much weight on their shoulders. You and I probably have views or have said something on one issue or another that if pressed, the candidates just might ‘denounce and reject’ – its time to be adults and recognize these candidates are real people, and to get things done sometimes they will come across other REAL PEOPLE with views we dont agree with.

Farrakhan is an anti-semite, but in Chicago he has held blacks responsible for their own actions and actually dont some positive things. Many bigoted christians, even ones in my family, say absolutely horrible things about gays but do great charity work. If we’re always looking at the worse side and attributing these things to the candidates, we are always going to be angry and cynical and project those views onto each candidate and their supporters.

this is not right.

Feb 29, 2008 at 12:20 pm · @Reply ·

Upstate NYer

For those who say Obama’s ad is “too little, too late” gay pandering, that is just ignoring the facts.

In his debut to the nation — his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention — he mentioned gay people specifically. He didn’t have to, no one would have noticed if he didn’t and many politicos I am sure would have advised against it. But he believed enough in us as part of a vision of America that we were included. I watched that convention gavel-to-gavel, and I believe it was one of only two mentions of gay people (the other by Ted Kennedy).

Also remember that on Martin Luther King Day of this year, speaking at MLK’s church to a group of black ministers, he spoke of gay people and how the African American community has not been as loving and accepting of LGBT people as it should. Could that possibly be pandering, on the eve of the South Carolina primaries where he needed black votes (and not necessarily gay votes) to get him to victory? It was the only mention of gay people on a day celebrating civil rights that I saw from any presidential candidate (cetainly not from the ever-cautious Hillary Clinton).

As for Donnie McClurkin, either you agree with Obama’s world view that we must stand even with our opponents and work with them for a better country, or you don’t. I for one am tired of those who say, “They hate me, so I want nothing to do with them.” We are all on the journey of America, and either we figure out how to talk and work with each other or we as a nation will fail. It’s called community (not LGBT community, but neighborhood community, national community): we don’t have to love each other, but we must figure out how we are going to live together. Simply marginalizing each other has led us to the sad, polorized, demagogic state that the US is in today, where we view each other as enemies rather than as having a vested interest in each other’s well being.

Let the change and move toward community begin with me, and I am glad to have a candidate (and hopefully a president) like Barack Obama help galvanize that change toward a more united national community.

Feb 29, 2008 at 12:21 pm · @Reply ·

Jaroslaw

Comments # 3 (James) and #4 (Parsnip) – you need a civics lesson. Being CHARGED with a crime does not make you guilty. Perhaps Bill overdid it giving out 140 pardons on his last days, but you know, that Monica thing cost the country 90 MILLION dollars and what did it accomplish? Politics, like it or not, is never going to be as pure as driven snow. And after much research, I’m convinced Susan McDougall didn’t do anything wrong at all. You have to go beyond news bites. But back to the point, I don’t like crime and bad behavior any more than you do but until we as a nation truly decide what we want, you cannot prosecute every fringe activity or the congress and judiciary will be doing nothing else with their time.

Feb 29, 2008 at 12:23 pm · @Reply ·

Goon

“I still contend that Obama is in a true Catch 22 with regards to having on the one hand to not alienate Black voters because he and not Hillary is the â€œblack candidateâ€ and must pander to people he can probably not, on principle, tolerate.”

in this speech at Ebenezer Church, Obama called people out on not accepting gays, TO THEIR FACE:

“And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If weâ€™re honest with ourselves, weâ€™ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to Kingâ€™s vision of a beloved community.

We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.”

Feb 29, 2008 at 12:26 pm · @Reply ·

Sonyl Nagale

Michael Bedwell :

I’m familiar with the whole non-cropped image. His hands are not joined in prayer and he is not gazing heavenward but rather almost directly to the side.

However, even if you got this impression on first glance, I dont’ see the problem. Praying for a united world where LGBTQ individuals are equal is something valid.

KB said: “I think that Barack Obama is the best choice. I am confident that he will surround himself with the Best of the Best to have a successful administration.”

Is this supposed to be an excuse for his lack of experience? That he’ll surround him with “best of the best” because he doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing? Remember, Obama has less experience than Bush Jr. did when he became president. Do we really want another neophyte running things? We need to set some standards, America.

I remember when Bush was running, I said the same things, “This guy isn’t qualified to be president,” and people said, “But he’ll hire really smart people around him to help him run the country.” Look where Bush’s cronies got us.

And now you want to elect someone even less qualified than Bush Jr.? God, Americans are such masochists.

Feb 29, 2008 at 1:25 pm · @Reply ·

M Shane

It’s really foolish for us or anyone to view Obama as some ol ‘nigger crawled out from behind the wood pile and then just clumsily pieced togeter what he could as opportunity presented itself. Does anyone keep account of the fact that he is a senator in one of the most politically sophisticated areas in the U.S. That he is not an Afro-American in any traditional sense. That more than anyone in the running he has had need to find authentically who he is apart from any group.
He has stood up for what he believed in voting against the war when even Hillary never had the guts or smarts.
He catches flack for some really superficial deeds which can easily be excused as rhetoric which anyone uses to win.

He never said” Fuck gay people! ” He is sure getting assasinated as if he did. He has been pulling people together and inspiring something different: it’s so fucked up now that how can he itemize his program when it’s amazing that he’s willing to generalize.
Come on :Hillary’s first supporter to step up was Rupert Murdoch lord of (the journalistic) lie. She took more money from the Health indusry lobbies than all but one person in poltics. Nobody calls her on these real acts of hypocrisy.. Give Obama just a little slack. He’s not a dummy: indeed to make it in Illinois as a black man he has to be smarter than smart.

Feb 29, 2008 at 1:53 pm · @Reply ·

M Shane

Have you looked at Hillary’s experience: I think she did well on those Easter egg roles. As far as legislation goes i doen’t think she sponsored much of anything. She voted along with Bush for the war and took almost a milion dollars from the healthare industry . If that’s experience, we can do with out. Unfortunarely he has to have proven himself. He can’t get by on pity points.

I don’t like any of them at this point. We are on the heels of another Great Depression, the gay community is so self-centered with this gay marriage shit that will only affect about 2% of gay people while the rest of us who can’t find a decent relationship are struggling with health care, being told we can no longer adopt kids, gay bashing etc – these are everyday things that affect all gay people across the board. I don’t know enough about Obama to say anything bad about him, but the minute he joined up with the Jesus people he lost me. ANYTIME you mix politics with religious interests its very bad. Take the YMCA for example. Sure, very popular in many gay communities to be a member there, and it does tend to be an accepting place, but so long as it’s a Christian, family-oriented organization…I have never once seen an openly gay person in a management position at any Y. This is the same thing. With Obama, the excuse will be ‘vote for him now and just get him in the White House and then he will do things’. How about 2012? The answer will be ‘I can’t do anything for gay people now because I need votes to get re-elected. The GLBT community and Native Americans are two groups these candidates have done nothing about nor have even mentioned in public because each group only makes up a tiny percentage of people – not worth it to open a can of worms to get votes that won’t mean much in the end. It’s as simple as that.

This is absurd. The Clintons threw us under the buss three months after they took office.

The Clintons have never passed any substantive legislation on our behalf.

The Clintons never SAY the word GAY (or lesbian or transgender) without being asked to say it, being lobbied to say it, being told it is strategically wise to say it.

Obama has made us part of the fabric of his speeches and coalition. He GETS it. And, if you want to focus on McClurkin, you miss the entire point. The reason he HAS the moral authority to stand up at the pulpit of the Ebenezer Baptist Church and call them out for homophobia is BECAUSE he invites different views under his tent and uses that tent to bridge the divide of differences.

I have been an organizer in the community for years. It is time to turn away from our blind loyalty to the Clintons and look to the future.

Finally, what does it say about Hillary that she has ignored our vote and our community in the hour of our need? It says everything.

Tom

Feb 29, 2008 at 10:26 pm · @Reply ·

Gary

What’s so shocking to me is how many other candidates there are, and yet the only one we keep hearing about is Barack Hussein Obama.

Voting for someone simply based on a promise is a depressingly ignorant decision. He has no track record when it comes to voting on tough issues including gay rights. Among all candidates, the only one who supports the gay community is Hillary Clinton. While Obama may have a clever advertiser on his side, and McCain altogether hides from reality, Clinton has always been a contributing factor in equal rights for racial and ethnic equality movements.

I donâ€™t understand what everyoneâ€™s talking about. This article fails to mention that though, she might not support nationalized gay marriage rights, she does support states choice as well as civil unions with the same benefits as gay marriage.

In order to achieve our big goal of equal marriage rights, we, as a community need to be willing to accept the baby steps that pave the way.

Itâ€™s easy to blame her considering her husband did in fact sign the bill to enforce â€œDonâ€™t Ask, Donâ€™t Tellâ€, but even she admits that she doesnâ€™t support this and believes in equal rights for all citizens.

Hillary Clinton also voted against the ban on same-sex marriage, as well as equal rights for gay adoption. She also speaks out about gay hate crime and proves to be tough on hate crimes for all â€œminoritiesâ€.

In addition to all this, sheâ€™s written the Early Treatment for HIV Act, which widens availability to vital treatment options for low-income individuals living with HIV.

You can choose to believe what the mainstream media shoves down our throats, or you can always look up your politicians stands on common voting issues. I choose to keep my eyes open and see that someone with these experiences and support for our gay community deserves the position of president more than someone with little experience or knowledge on these and other vital domestic and international issues.

I have yet to see a firm stand on equal rights from Barack Hussein Obama or any other candidate. While Hillary’s stand may be one of small progressive change, at least we know where she stands and what she’s always stood for our community.

I also feel that it’s unnecessary to vote for someone solely based on this issue. Have we forgotten the global issues that face us as we speak? Not only is the economy of our country unstable and headed for disaster, but the global economy is affected as well, and we need competent minds in office to secure our futures.

We can’t also forget that the economy was in surplus in her husband’s administration was in place. Even before then, she began community and global efforts and movements that have bettered this country while making contact with vital world leaders in most major countries including Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and other key countries in our current “War on Terror”.

We need someone with those contacts and that knowledge to support our global image so that we may get even more support in uncertain, and unguaranteed times.

WE, the LGBT community, can not forget that the presidential election means far more than equal rights. While it is a very important factors, I’m more worried about the safety of our entire country and the future of our country for the next generations.

Mar 1, 2008 at 3:53 am · @Reply ·

Paul

No, no! You who think Obama is courting your vote and will sell you down the river later… You forget that he is a man of principle who stands up for what he believes in. He’s spoken on national television in support of gays. He’s signed his name to a lengthy statement that may be used in the future against him by the Republicans and conservatives, but he’ll continue to stand by it.

Mar 1, 2008 at 8:32 am · @Reply ·

Paul

And Gary, stop trying to associate Barack with the Muslims, Islam, and Saddam. That’s an old Hillary supporter trick and it’s getting to be old hat. It just shows your prejudices and your attempt to insert subliminal shit.

Mar 1, 2008 at 8:35 am · @Reply ·

Frank

I’m already a Hillary fan, so I suppose you could take this with a grain of salt. I haven’t forgotten the Donny McClurkin flap ahead of the S. Carolina primaries. Obama needed the support of anti-gay Baptists, and he included arch-homphopbe McClurkin as MC of his campaign’s gospel tour. When the resulting flap ensued, he issued some statements supporting gay rights, and said that he was only trying to bring both sides together. However I wouldn’t expect very many African Americans to be mollified if, say, John Edwards had invited an outspoken member of the KKK to MC one of his events, and later explained that he was just trying to bring the KKK and the African American community together.

Of late Mr. Obama is again saying the right words to the gay community. But sorry. To me it appears that he simply wants votes, and is willing to appeal to all sides, saying and doing whatever works.

Mar 1, 2008 at 9:43 am · @Reply ·

M Shane

Getting the votes is what all candidates are doing: people whoiexpect otherwise arre naive beyond belief.
As far as Clinton haveinibng any kind of record based on principle, I wouldn’t play that card. She has litwerally intrduced no significant legislation. She voted for the War and never apologized (which puts her mo her more or less in the same camp as McCain) She even voted more recently to give Bush considerably more money unqiualified to continue the efforts for Exxon/mobile ,Halburton, and the other corporations for whom the war is being fought.
I can’t imagine her doing anything to fight our fantastical “war on Terror Irean etc. where we placed dictators instead of democratic governments. Her first big fundraiser was Rupert Murdock , Bush’s major media supporter. She was beaten by noly one person in taking money fron private health interests($800,000 in 06) whicle she claims to be for healthcare. She’s an uncompromised hypocrite.
I can’t think of anything that she has done for gay people, can you.

It is a not so slick and hatefully racist thing to make special efforts to call Barack Obama “Hussain:” as if his first and second name were not sufficient. That is appaling and overtly racist: why not call him “Raghead”.

I can thinlk of a lot of thinks to call Clinton but I think that Republican attempts to dirty this race are as unscrupulous as the people who make them..
Obama has been a man of exceptional principle in voting from the gate against an inhumane and unlawful war, and to continue that stance despite fools who voted for it.

Interestingly m, peop[le are giving her credit for BIll’s politoical position. Are we getting two presidents? This is pretty close to being a Monarchy , so many be it doesn’t matter. So that what you are saying.

Mar 1, 2008 at 11:13 am · @Reply ·

M Shane

Getting the votes is what all candidates are doing: people who expect otherwise arre naive(stupid) beyond belief.
As far as Clinton havining any kind of record based on principle, I wouldn’t play that card. She has literally intrduced no significant legislation in her history. She voted for the Iraq Warfrom the beginning and never apologized (which puts her her more or less in the same camp as McCain) She even voted more recently to give Bush considerably more money unqiualified to continue the efforts for Exxon/mobile ,Halburton, and the other corporations for whose benef the war is being fought.
I can’t imagine her doing anything to fight our fantastical “war on Terrorâ€ in Iran etc. where we placed dictators instead of democratic governments.That war in Iraq has done more to promote “terror ” than anything possibly could. That is no secret. Her first big fundraiser was Rupert Murdoc , Bush’s unqualified major media champion. She was beaten by only one person inthe amount of money takenfron private health interests($800,000 in â€˜06) while she claims to be for healthcare. She’s an uncompromised hypocrite.
I can’t think of anything that she has done for gay people, can you?

It is a not so slick and hatefully racist thing to make special efforts to call Barack Obama “Hussain:” as if having a n Arabic name was anathama as if his first and second name were not sufficient. You are a racsist kumquat brain: why not call him “Raghead”?

I can think of a lot of thinks to call Clinton but I think that Republican attempts to dirty this race are as unscrupulous as the people who make them..
Obama has been a man of exceptional principle in voting from the gate against an inhumane and unlawful war, and to continue that stance despite fools who voted for it.

Interestingly , peop[le are giving Hillary credit for BIll’s politoical position. Are we getting two presidents? This is pretty close to being a Monarchy , so many be it doesn’t matter. So that what you are promoting: a fascist monarchy. Inagine themofighting it out in the white house This is a case of where two is less than one.

Mar 1, 2008 at 11:43 am · @Reply ·

Gary

I’ll correct myself for using my own passion to strengthen my argument. But it’s not like I made up his name, people just need to hear what it is, and realize that it’s not his enemies making something up, it’s the truth simply being stated. It’s not a slick attempt, I think it was actually quite blatant, and if you didn’t get the point, sorry for the misinterpretation. He has family connections to Islam. It’s not advertising.

Whether you vote for Hillary, McCain or Obama, or any of the other 3rd parties, facts are facts, and all these arguments of campaign hypocrisy are true of each candidate, especially Barack Obama, who changes his stand on gay marriage, abortion, racial equality, economic rebuilding and the wars around the world, simply to fit in with the crowd and rally as much unquestioned votes as possible.

Of course he wants change, he changes his mind every other day.

I don’t feel comfortable that someone with as little floor plan as him being my president. I don’t feel comfortable with other countries knowing someone this inexperienced with foreign policy and knowledge of how to plan a war on all accounts is leading this country in a time of war in both Iraq and Afghanistan and potentially more.

He speaks of change, I know, it’s not that his IDEAS or MESSAGE is a bad one. I feel uncomfortable knowing that there is nothing to back up the things he says he stands for.

Hillary Clinton has my vote simply because I know she has the knowledge and the courage to make this country more strong and united. It’s not in her plan to people-please her way through presidency and she stands up for what’s good for our morals as a country whether it’s popular or not.

Being a First-Lady for 8 years and an attorney and community and world activist before that, she does have the experience it takes, like it or not. She’s got nation and world-wide experience that I’m willing to support more than his.

Each candidate has about equal the political experience, in terms of longevity, so I’m sick of hearing that argument from each side. It’s not about length of candidacy, it’s about validity of a job well-done.

EVERY CANDIDATE accepts donations, whether it’s from a republican, independent or democrat. It doesn’t matter where they come from, and that’s also why there’s a $2300 limit.

But if she’s getting votes from these republicans, that should tell you how bi-partisan she is as well.

I’m sick of feeling like I’m arguing though, why don’t we just wait and see what happens when we find ourselves on the upcoming election days.

Mar 1, 2008 at 1:22 pm · @Reply ·

Gary

Also, we keep forgetting that in the beginning, about half of America, including Barack Obama and Clinton supported the war. It’s only when we started realizing we were stuck there that we began to end the support. We can’t forget that at the time she supported the war because there was in fact a prominent dictator that needed to be removed from power.

We as a nation were also lied to about the reasons for invading Iraq. So why should she be at fault for supporting something that seemed right at the time.

Mar 1, 2008 at 1:28 pm · @Reply ·

M Shane

Not true regarding the war, some people were smart and well informed enough(which didn’t take much!) to know that we were getting the wool pulled over our eyes.

It’s not entirely uncommon for people to try to try the ugly kind of right wing sabotage whch tried to associate Barak with Arabs. The fact is that the really corrupt arabs are of our own making. America destroyed democracys in Iran replace with the Shah, Irag replace with Sadam: yes America put Sadam in place of a duely elected democratic government. The list is so long of democracies even in the Mideast that wthe US has destroyed sothe we could have their oil, that there’s hardly a point in inumerating all of them. Then we come around in Hollywood style and demonize a decent people who happen to be different: not Christian: Bush’s nuevo-Crusade.

How many people know that Sadam was the least of all people to be responsible for 9/11 and that the war was started for Exxon /Mobile and the other Jackel corporations like Halburton, Bectel, Blackwater.

Mar 1, 2008 at 2:04 pm · @Reply ·

Gary

Yes, that’s why I said about half. You’re still not saying anything concrete about your candidate. You’re not telling me that Obama is better for the country, you’re telling me that our past is corrupt. That corruption did not come from Hillary, or Barack, let me remind you, that came from the Bush administration.

We put Saddam in place well before Hillary could have anything to do with it. I don’t really understand what your point is on this, you aren’t making a strong argument in support of your savior, Barack.

Let me remind all of you, that people saying things like this are simply bringing up the faults of our current government and the government of Bush Sr. and his predecessors. I will continue to support Hillary, because, as I said, she actually has knowledge and experience to back her word up rather than an empty promise and a generic stereotypical argument of “the popular” candidate portrayed in the media as the second-coming.

Mar 1, 2008 at 2:18 pm · @Reply ·

Goon

“Also, we keep forgetting that in the beginning, about half of America, including Barack Obama and Clinton supported the war. Itâ€™s only when we started realizing we were stuck there that we began to end the support.”

this is a lie.
Barack Obama marched in the streets with anti-Iraq war activists and made several public speeches.
Hillary did not read the National Intelligence Estimate and yet still voted to approve Bush’s war, and was the only Democrat to hit the floor of the senate echoing Bushs’ words of definite connections with Al Qaeda. Hillary didnt just vote for the war, she was in full on lock step with it. period.

Since Obama has been in the senate, he has voted for funding because with Bush in the White House the best thing he could do for the troops with that in mind is help pay for their body armor. He has said in 2004 that “he wouldnt know how he would have voted” because 1) he didnt have access to the NIE and other info only the senators had and were possibly duped with and 2) it was for a Kerry/Edwards event and he was politically trying to avoid castrating the Democrats chance to beat Bush.

Mar 1, 2008 at 2:47 pm · @Reply ·

Gary

As I said, in the beginning he supported it, and his non-voting record doesn’t show that he’s against anything, it only proves that he doesn’t care. Hillary has since said it was the wrong decision and acknowledged it was the wrong decision, but she was not the only democrat in support of it. Barack Obama simply chose not to be there in most of these votes. Avoidance isn’t going to prove your stance on the tough issues. You can vote for whoever you choose.

I still support Hillary Clinton, we as democrats have to realize that no matter what, one of these candidates must win, and if it ends up being Hillary Clinton against John McCain, who are you going to support? Who do you think has more of a chance defeating John McCain with all his experience overseas? Clinton vs. McCain… Obama vs. McCain… I don’t know, I guess we’ll see what happens.

Mar 1, 2008 at 4:10 pm · @Reply ·

Goon

“As I said, in the beginning he supported it”:

Again, he simply did dot, there is no proof of such as if there was you can bet your ass it would be in every Hillary commercial. He was in the streets with the protestors of the war from the get-go.

“Hillary has since said it was the wrong decision and acknowledged it was the wrong decision, but she was not the only democrat in support of it.”

If Democrats read the NIE and decided it was okay, and admit they were wrong, thats one thing – its another when Hillary DIDNT EVEN READ THE NIE and voted for the Iraq war, and never expressed regret for it until she hit the campaign trail, and never officially apologized as Edwards did. This is irresponsible.

I’m not saying ‘vote McCain if Hillary wins!’ – far from it (see my earlier msgs) – I am saying that Hillary’s supposed “Experience” does not impress me, taking credit for Bill’s successes (economy) and excusing herself from all of its failures (NAFTA) even though she praised it in her own books and speeches until… the campaign trail, of course.

Her greatest role in the Clinton White House was the health care plan, which she did behind closed doors, failed at, ended up losing the house and senate over it, and never tried at again. Since then she’s taken more money from the HC industry than anyone – how am I to believe she’d actually get the job done this time?
How am I supposed to be impressed by her experience when she includes the years she worked as a lawyer for anti-union Wal-Mart? When in her years in the senate the majority of her bills have been to name courthouses after political heroes. In Obama’s short time he’s written over 5 times as many bills, substantive ones, and sponsored even more.

Its all about who can deliver. Obama has more elected experience, is an actual doer, and he has the upside of being more electable and inspiring. Those things people act are all he has are simply the icing on the cake.

in the wake of Hillarys “3am” ad, everyone should check this video out, where it becomes obvious that if he wasn’t married to her, Bill would be campaigning for Obama

Mar 1, 2008 at 4:45 pm · @Reply ·

M Shane

ditto! well said Goon: SHillary did relatively little when so terribly much needed doing. She should have been leading the Democrates, not tailing Bush. Nonetheless, if she is the candidate, I’m not so numb as to say I wouldn’t back her.

Mar 1, 2008 at 5:47 pm · @Reply ·

Gary

I appreciate the honesty at least. Even if we disagree on this, we still need to on some level think of alternative candidates because there will only be one winner.

Mar 1, 2008 at 6:30 pm · @Reply ·

Robert

No. 56:

If she did so terribly little when so much needed done, why does she lead nationwide in the number voting Democrats?

Mar 1, 2008 at 6:34 pm · @Reply ·

M Shane

Even if she did lead inthe number of voting democrates I fail to see any concievable corelation between that and doing anything at all. In that time the U.S. has become irrevocably indebted, murdered thousands of innocenyt foreigners at the cost of irepresable terrorism; nothing has been done for lgbt people; Noything has been done for the environment; unemployment is chronic; Even when the interest rate is lowered, recession rapidly plunges. What did she do: well she collected more money from Health lobbiests than anyone; I think she did wellat Easter egg roles.
What do Americans want?

Mar 1, 2008 at 8:20 pm · @Reply ·

M Shane

Miss Piggy enjoyed great popularity.

Mar 1, 2008 at 8:25 pm · @Reply ·

Gary

Your arguments are desperate clings to hope. You seem to be using arguments you could use about any other candidate in any race in America. Nothing you just said has anything to do with her own malicious wrong-doing, let’s just end it already.

Mar 1, 2008 at 8:30 pm · @Reply ·

Brian Miller

Obama stands for segregation. He believes that gay people should get “separate and unequal” civil unions.

Just like Obama wouldn’t accept the creation of “separate but equal” schools for black children in order to get his health care bill passed, LGBT supporters should reject Obama’s claim that “civil unions” represent “equality.”

The most incredible thing about this empty-suit candidate is that his position on gay issues is identical to Al Gore’s from back in 2000 — the Democrats haven’t evolved an inch in 8 years, yet expect adulation, queer votes, and millions in LGBT political contributions.

What have they done to earn them?

In his entire career in the Senate, Obama has not voted once for equality in immigration, tax treatment, adoption, military service, or marriage.

All his calls for ending DOMA and repealing DADT are nice and pretty, but he’s an empty suit. He has repeatedly turned down opportunities to cosponsor legislation in the Senate that would do both of those things. Why am I supposed to believe that, as president, his record of failure will be any different?

…and even though that works in Obama’s favor, it says nothing about who is actually the better candidate. Its kind of an insult to Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd, etc supporters – “well if your candidate was so good, how come they didn’t win” doesnt play with me, sorry.

…which brings us back to ‘experience’ – if this was the most important trait right now, I wonder why Clinton’s supporters didn’t go with Bill Richardson? Even they have to admit that there are many other factors that come into play when selecting their favorite candidate.

Besides, you can’t lay all the blame for lack of progress on her. She has advanced causes, including important environmental and health issues.

She marched in multiple gay pride parades, including as the First Lady. That’s a big deal, even if it’s not legislative. We in the LGBT community should be aware of how powerful images can be. And having the First Lady march is a powerful image. (Barack has never marched in a parade. And he declined to have a picture taken with the mayor Gavin Newsom.)

In terms of legislation, she has done work, such as pushing for increased funding for HIV/AIDS services.

Also, when she discusses her opposition to gay marriage, she frames it in terms of culture and tradition. But never explicitly about faith. Obama, in all his speeches on gay marriage, has opposed it on religious grounds. That scares me more.

Mar 1, 2008 at 9:42 pm · @Reply ·

Robert

No. 63:

That would be a polling result of preference, which does not necessarily correlate with actual votes. If you want the breakdown of actual numbers, I would suggest reading this extensive and well-informed analysis of the voting:

personally, I would rather a candidate propose the government get out of the marriage business entirely, and EVERYONE have civil unions…

Regardless, it was the Clintons that left behind DOMA and Dont Ask Dont Tell like a turd sitting in my drink, so I’d say spread that doubt around a little thicker, sir.

Do they both pander? Oh hells yeah. But considering I’m also an atheist, I’m wary of both of their uses of religion as well. But facts are facts, that either of them on both of these issues, Pander Bear or not, trump McCain who actively courted John Hagee, who hates just about everyone getting in the way of Armageddon.

Mar 1, 2008 at 9:47 pm · @Reply ·

Brian Miller

It’s a rather low standard for one’s support to say that (s)he is better than the Republican candidate on gay issues.

The willingness of the queer polity to maintain this standard is how we got Democrats who gave us DOMA and the military’s anti-gay ban — yet who didn’t fear retribution from gay voters in the least.

At the end of the day, we’re going to get the civil rights we deserve. If we provide tens of millions of dollars of campaign contributions and millions of votes to candidates who make empty promises without legislation action, or who stab us in the back Clinton-style, we’ll get more of the same and will be talking about the merits of a “pro-civil union” Democratic presidential candidate 20 years from now.

Mar 1, 2008 at 9:49 pm · @Reply ·

Goon

I wont read one word from a Taylor Marsh site anymore, she has propagandized for months now, spreading absolute disprovable lies like Obama playing “99 Problems” at his victory rally to mock Hillary. She has become an absolute propagandist bent on poisoning the entire Democratic Party well in order to prop Hillary up.

I read your second link, it suggests she does better among ‘moderates’ than Obama. It is perhaps exactly for this reason that in every national poll you can find McCain beats her. McCain drinks Hillary’s milkshake when it comes to the moderate vote – for whatever reason they prefer her, and if ‘experience’ matters in that vote, he’s got her beat… easily.

Sure its the WRONG kind of experience, but its ‘experience’, its military background, and its why yes, if you follow the polls as often as I do, every pollster, everywhere, shows McCain beating Hillary in states where Obama beats McCain. She has the highest negatives of any candidate, the only one to eclipse the 50% mark… she’s running a 50+1 percent strategy that no longer works. Obama is running a 50 state strategy in the mold of Howard Dean, and its working.

This is why the Dems won in 06… it made Carville furious at the time but even now he recognizes seeing it work TWICE, that he was wrong.

Mar 1, 2008 at 9:52 pm · @Reply ·

Goon

Brian, you speak the truth – it may sound like ‘lobbying’, but when you take ownership of the campaign, they are way more likely to listen than if you so easily abandon them.

I will say at least Obama had the sense, even if its pandering, to suggest civil unions nationally and let states decide about the next step of marriage. I would imagine this could happen, but moreso and I plead ignorance here, I have no idea how all of the individual state referendums affect the way a candidate can put through national legislation.

Mar 1, 2008 at 9:56 pm · @Reply ·

Brian Miller

How does the “experience” thing matter when it comes to gay issues? Clinton and Obama have an identical voting record on LGBTQ issues, and neither one has much to brag about.

Mar 1, 2008 at 9:56 pm · @Reply ·

Brian Miller

I will say at least Obama had the sense, even if its pandering, to suggest civil unions nationally and let states decide about the next step of marriage.

Let’s be super-charitable and assume that he honestly believes this.

What has Obama achieved — or even attempted — as a Senator to lead us to believe he’d deliver on this commitment?

As Senator, he’s had numerous opportunities to introduce or cosponsor EXISTING legislation to make some of the most basic stuff he talks about — such as a DOMA repeal or an end to the anti-gay military policy — happen.

He has skipped on every opportunity.

Why would he suddenly change this dismal record when he becomes president?

Someone should ask him (and Clinton) that question during the debates. Of course, that would require someone who wasn’t vetted by either campaign, and a competent media, ergo, it’s never gonna happen. That doesn’t mean that *WE* shouldn’t be asking that question however.

Mar 1, 2008 at 10:03 pm · @Reply ·

Goon

and now that I’ve read more of Corrente… I wonder why you have to use small Hillary apologist blogs to make your points? Should I expect links to No Quarter for “objective analysis” next?

In the end, if you’re trying to use these links to play the electability game, I think you make a bad case. Nothing rings truer than the facts – in all current polls, Obama beats McCain nationally, Hillary does not; Obama leads Hillary among identified registered Democrats and when it has come time to vote (excluding NH) he has blown out, even in primaries, beyond his expected numbers – clearly because so much of the young voters do not have land lines to be counted…

he has won the majority of his victories in margins of 20% or higher, Hillary has won only won contest by that ratio – Arkansas, Bill’s home state. You can’t come and tell me that secretly Hillary has more votes with all of these cold hard facts out there.

Mar 1, 2008 at 10:04 pm · @Reply ·

Brian Miller

Can we please keep the discussion focused on LGBT issues rather than a diversion into which of these completely-undifferentiated-on-the-issues candidates is “better” by non-LGBT-relevant criteria?

Mar 1, 2008 at 10:05 pm · @Reply ·

Goon

Brian, I have no idea of the truth or spin behind Obama’s (in)action in the senate… but I managed to get some info on his rating from the Human Rights Campaign:

“Barack Obama in the United States Senate: Every two years the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay and lesbian organization, issues a scorecard for members of the Senate based on their sponsorship and voting on key issues of importance to gay and lesbian citizens. Barack Obama scored 89 out of 100% in the 2006 scorecard. Here’s how HRC rated Barack Obama:
Barack Obama on Hate Crimes: Barack Obama co-sponsored legislation to expand federal hate crimes laws to include crimes perpetrated because of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Employment Non-Discrimination: Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes it should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – Gays in the Military: Barack Obama believes we need to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. His campaign literature says, “The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve.”
Gay & Lesbian Adoption: Barack Obama believes gays and lesbians should have the same rights to adopt children as heterosexuals.
Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions: Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

“Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn’t cause discrimination,” Obama said. “I think it is the right balance to strike in this society.”
Sources: Chicago Daily Tribune, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force”

I will note that Hillary Clinton ALSO received an 89% from the HRC

HRC – Human Rights Campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton

how bout that?

Mar 1, 2008 at 10:11 pm · @Reply ·

Brian Miller

Well, three thoughts there from me, Goon…

1) I don’t think HRC speaks for a large proportion of the LGBT community. I was once a paid member yet never got to vote for chairs or any other offices. It’s a very top-down organization, so its scorecard doesn’t really match with the priorities of the LGBT “everyperson.”

2) That HRC (the candidate) and BHO both got an equal score sorta underscores the fact that they’re undifferentiated — even by HRC (the organization’s) standard.

3) I prefer to judge candidates on actions, rather than easily stated-yet-not-acted-upon “beliefs.” If Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama “believe” that gay people should be able to serve in the military but do nothing, their “belief” is as relevant as the Prime Minister of Djubouti’s.

If they’re not willing to take the numerous opportunities they both had to cosponsor legislation and make their “beliefs” happen, then they are completely useless and their “beliefs” are just calculated spin to feed gay voters and the queer press to get more votes and money without having to take actual risks to earn them.

Brian, I disagree with your summarization, specifically because if they can get THAT rating, there has to be SOMETHING there on both of them to work with, and I would hesitate to call either of them empty suits.

Instead it simply proves to me that they need some serious prodding instead of constant cynicism, voting the lesser of two evils and asking for nothing in return.

even if all you can end up doing is sending an email to Tim Russert, the douche, and asking him to prod the candidates next time they appear – its better than trying to stifle the hopes of other people isnt it? I understand the cynicism, but its a different world than 2000 – just ask Canada, and I can only look forward at this point.

Mar 1, 2008 at 10:25 pm · @Reply ·

Goon

anyways I’m done for the evening, I respect your disagreement

cheers

Mar 1, 2008 at 10:27 pm · @Reply ·

Brian Miller

if they can get THAT rating, there has to be SOMETHING there on both of them to work with

I’d say it says more about HRC (the organization) and its lack of demands than about the candidates themselves.

That an incumbent who has:

1) Never once voted to repeal the anti-gay military ban or cosponsored legislation to do so;

2) Never once voted to repeal DOMA or cosponsored legislation to do so;

3) Never once voted for UAFA (both Clinton and Obama are opposed to UAFA as written);

4) Never once voted for federal equal adoption legislation or cosponsored it;

5) Never once voted for federal tax treatment equality legislation or cosponsored it

… can suddenly get 89% (a B+!) is evidence of how useless HRC’s scorecard is.

HRC should rate candidates by VOTES and legislation cosponsored. By that rating, Obama and Clinton would have about a 16.7% rating, or a low F.

Incidentally, that standard would also recognize legislative leaders like Dennis Kucinich who have put their money where their mouths are in introducing and cosponsoring actual legislation, rather than just talking about their “beliefs.”

And if Clinton and Obama knew they had to actually support legislation to get points, the pressure would be on to actually achieve something other than slick campaign websites and smooth talk without action.

Mar 1, 2008 at 10:33 pm · @Reply ·

Robert

Goon, the article on Taylor Mash’s site was not written by Mash. Rather, it was a piece written by someone else that Taylor Mash included on the website. Indeed, you could find it on the second website link, too. I just happened to have the Taylor Mash one handy.

It shouldn’t matter, though. Numbers are numbers.

Mar 2, 2008 at 12:29 am · @Reply ·

Robert

Also, Goon. Obama is slipping in his lead over McCain. Most polls do put him ahead. But a lot of those are within the margin of error.

Mar 2, 2008 at 12:31 am · @Reply ·

Robert

I agree with you, Brian. But as none of the current candidates offer anything better, you pick from the crop that you have. Then you work hard, through activism, to convince that candidate to be more progressive.

Within the current bunch, I think Hillary has the greatest chance of being persuaded to support further queer rights.

Mar 2, 2008 at 12:33 am · @Reply ·

tbnyc01

Here’s the problems I have with Obama:

1. Obama keeps talking about how his non-support of the Iraq war, but these are the only senators that voted against the war:

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent who courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq were:

He’s not there. Oh yea, it’s easy to Monday-morning-quarterback. How can one say that he would have voted against the war when he didn’t have a chance to. It’s not a platform to criticize if he wasn’t there.

2. In all his speeches, he has never outlined a plan, or a blueprint, of how he is going to accomplish something. It’s like when Dinkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dinkins) was running for NYC mayor after a major financial crisis. Touted as a mayor of change, he ended up being one of the worst mayors in the city’s history because he got little or nothing done.

3. Obama’s campaign has historically pushed out last minute controversial ads to get the last little bit of votes they can. If he really believed in OUR rights he would have campaigned them from the start.

4. Unifying everyone sounds fantastic, but it takes more than a president.

Don’t buy the speeches, ask how it’s accomplished.

Mar 2, 2008 at 12:37 am · @Reply ·

tbnyc01

“He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.”

Civil unions haven’t worked in New Jersey. They are not the same as marriage. Google it and you will see why.

Mar 2, 2008 at 12:41 am · @Reply ·

Gary

We need to be willing to accept the small steps towards the equality we want. We can’t have an all or nothing mentality when it comes to equal rights. If you look at civil rights movements, things didn’t fully change for years, and we’re still imperfect on that. This is a huge opportunity to elect either candidate who supports a first step we as a LGBT community haven’t seen nationally before.

Mar 2, 2008 at 1:50 am · @Reply ·

Brian Miller

as none of the current candidates offer anything better, you pick from the crop that you have

I don’t agree. I intend to vote Libertarian this presidential election season. If Democrats ask me why, I’ll point out the Libs’ vastly superior record on gay issues.

If the Democrats want my vote, they have to earn it. That means actual votes as incumbents and real action.

If enough gay people voted third party over these issues to cost Democrats a few elections, they’d have their tantrums but then they’d be forced to do something substantive to win back all those LGBTQ votes. With the “pick the best of a bad bunch” model, they can continue their pattern of do-nothing politics for decades without fear of consequences for their moral cowardice.

Mar 2, 2008 at 11:58 am · @Reply ·

Brian Miller

We canâ€™t have an all or nothing mentality when it comes to equal rights. If you look at civil rights movements, things didnâ€™t fully change for years, and weâ€™re still imperfect on that.

MLK started his civil rights revolution in the mid 1950s. By 1967, the Civil Rights Act was passed. By 1970, all anti-black laws were unconstitutional. That’s not even 20 years to full legal equality.

The gay rights revolution started at Stonewall in 1969. FORTY years later — over twice as long as the black civil rights movement — we’re nowhere NEAR equality under the law.

Rosa Parks refused to sit at the back of the bus. If she’d been gay instead of black, she’d have lots of gay Democrats saying “there are more important issues than being able to sit at the front of the bus that we have to deal with.”

That’s why we’ve given hundreds of millions of votes and dollars over the years and gotten literally nothing.

Mar 2, 2008 at 12:01 pm · @Reply ·

Robert

No. 86:

The problem with this view is that Democrats don’t care if they lose your vote. Especially this election season, when voter turnout is so unbelievably high. And, in previous years, voter turnout has been so unbelievably low that the vast majority of voters were hardcore party loyalists. They aren’t going to defect.

I still think it’s worth being an activist within the Democrat party in order to bring about change. It has worked in the past, and can work for our future, too. I just haven’t seen such a huge outcry within the Democratic Party. If the fervor of Stonewall had continued as strongly as it first appeared, I think the Democratic Party would be rather different today than it is.

Mar 2, 2008 at 2:11 pm · @Reply ·

Brian Miller

The problem with this view is that Democrats donâ€™t care if they lose your vote. Especially this election season, when voter turnout is so unbelievably high. And, in previous years, voter turnout has been so unbelievably low that the vast majority of voters were hardcore party loyalists.

I disagree on both counts.

Firstly, Obama and Clinton are both polling more poorly against McCain than Kerry polled against Bush at this time, “high turnout” notwithstanding. And we all know how Kerry fared in the end.

Secondly, the 2004 election was noted for its unbelievably high turnout — and the Democrats still lost.

Gay voters represent about 7% of all voters, and trend towards the Democrats about 70%.

If the Democrats had 4.9% of voters not vote for them, they would lose this election, especially as McCain continues to gain momentum. That loss is greater than the polls’ margin of error, and would particularly hurt in swing states with large gay populations, such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Georgia.

The Democrats whined ceaselessly about the Nader campaign in 2000 — a gay exodus from the Democrats on account of their poor record on LGBT issues would make the 2000 Nader situation seem small and insignificant. It would also drain the Democrats of tens of millions of dollars in contributions and a large amount of their volunteer and activist base.

Mar 2, 2008 at 2:59 pm · @Reply ·

Brian Miller

I just havenâ€™t seen such a huge outcry within the Democratic Party.

Because gay people who actually push the Democrats to do the right thing on gay issues get fired and replaced with partisan yes-men. The Yandura/Hitchcock situation is proof positive of that. The Democrats demand queer votes without delivering anything of note to LGBT people other than platitudes and broken promises.

Mar 2, 2008 at 3:01 pm · @Reply ·

Robert

On that, Brian, we agree.

When I said activism within the Party, I meant activism from constituents–not necessarily people working in the ranks. Sorry for the unclear comment.

Mar 2, 2008 at 3:24 pm · @Reply ·

M Shane

If I’m hearing this correctly, someone is foolish enough to suggest that we make a “power play”, whereby risking that the Rebublicans win and that no body votes any more.
This would be fine in a fantastical world. Unfortunately this isn’t Wonderland and you’re not Alice . This is the crumbling, fascist USA. and there are issues of far greater import at risk .
The “libertarians” are about as fascist as the Republicans.
As far as polls go, I don’t know what reliable polls you’re referring too where McCain is doing well.-Rasmussen is pure shit.

Any “gay ” person who would even think of encouraging an anti democrate movement is an imbecile in every way. Neither the Rebublicans or the libertarians ever gave a shit about gay people if you think so take some more acid and climb in the closet.

Mar 2, 2008 at 4:35 pm · @Reply ·

Brian Miller

We haven’t done any worse under 8 years of Republican rule than we did under Bill Clinton.

In fact, we did better.

All of Bush’s anti-gay laws failed. Whereas under Clinton and a Democratic majority we got the anti-gay military ban, and under Clinton we also got DOMA.

All the rest of your rant is emotionalist gobbledygook, and since I prefer to deal in facts, I won’t dignify it with commentary.

Mar 2, 2008 at 5:15 pm · @Reply ·

M Shane

tbnyc01: Obama wasn’t even a senator in 2002: what is the point of your list: he was elected in 2004: He did give a speach at Chicagos Federal Plaza: saying:
”
I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.”

Don’t mislead people with crackpot stats:
He has always been against the war: he couldn’r vote in the senate anymore than you could: he wasn’t a Senator: he disd more than most people do.

Mar 2, 2008 at 7:35 pm · @Reply ·

Brian Miller

While the Iraq War stuff is not an LGBT issue, it is inaccurate to claim that Obama is against the war. Obama has voted at every fund request to provide George W. Bush with all the money that Bush has asked for to expand the scope of the war and prolong it.

An “anti-war” candidate is someone like Kucinich, who has voted against every Iraq War funding bill since then.

Obama cannot claim to be against the war when, at every vote, he has voted to fund and expand the war per George Bush’s request.

Sadly, people on the Iraq War issue seem just as determined to ignore the actual votes and facts as they are on LGBT issues. That’s why the war continues, and why gay people get nowhere vis-a-vis our civil rights.

Mar 2, 2008 at 7:43 pm · @Reply ·

Sonyl Nagale

Please, everyone, don’t forget about what the division between liberals cost us in the last two elections. Not to stand on a soapbox, but seriouslyâ€”don’t vote for people like Kucinich who have absolutely no chance to getting elected. It just doesn’t make sense. We have to do everything we can to get the White House away from the evil control it’s been in lately. Even if that means slightly compromising on your ideals, we MUST make sure another Iraq doesn’t happen. I think we can all agree that Obama wouldn’t make the mistake as Shrub did.

Think twice when you vote. Just remember: ideals are one thing, but with the state of the world we can’t afford to mess around! We absolutely NEED a president who (not to mince words) isn’t Republican. Obama crosses party lines to get things done. That’s what we need. An end to this endless war, non-party support of bills, and hope.

As the campaign says:

Yes We Can.

Mar 2, 2008 at 8:19 pm · @Reply ·

Sonyl Nagale

Brian Miller:

Keep in mind Bush endorsed all the anti-gay laws. No question. Had he had his way, we’d probably all be in Gulag now.

Mar 2, 2008 at 8:22 pm · @Reply ·

M Shane

No probably about it, Sonyl ! There is only an imaginary difference between LBGT issues and issues of compassion, humanity and civil right. People who are either tricksters or else with an incapacity for generalization would think otherwise. LGBT rights are only a small part an intense and commanding battle for human beings against the greatest evil the world has yet (in ignorance )had possed against it.

Mar 2, 2008 at 9:04 pm · @Reply ·

Brian Miller

Think twice when you vote. Just remember: ideals are one thing, but with the state of the world we canâ€™t afford to mess around! We absolutely NEED a president who (not to mince words) isnâ€™t Republican. Obama crosses party lines to get things done.

None of this stuff is new. As Einstein wisely noted, insanity is repeating the same action over and over with the expectation of getting different results.

Falling into line behind Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and now Obama — all with the same basic message — has done nothing significant for gay people’s basic civil rights. Repeating the same action for Obama isn’t going to get different results, and the old “we have to stop the GOP” canard is worn thin.

A quick look at the top campaign contributors for Clinton, McCain and Obama reveals much — namely, that they’re all the same! They’ll get what they paid for while gay people won’t get what we voted for.

Mar 2, 2008 at 9:38 pm · @Reply ·

Brian Miller

Keep in mind Bush endorsed all the anti-gay laws.

Clinton also endorsed most of them — and encouraged John Kerry to support the anti-gay constitutional amendment too.

The reality is the anti-gay laws didn’t pass because politicians from across the country know that most Americans don’t support those laws.

Now, it’s time for Democrats to stop playing “block” and start advancing equality. If they don’t, we can kick ‘em out and still stop the anti-gay laws, just as we did with Bush and a GOP congress.

Mar 2, 2008 at 9:40 pm · @Reply ·

Brian Miller

To clarify my previous comment, BILL Clinton endorsed them.

Mar 2, 2008 at 9:41 pm · @Reply ·

Sonyl Nagale

M Shane: Quite true. What I think about the current state of the political scene is NOT what is ideal, but what can make the most progress. Sure, we’d all rejoice if tomorrow we could get married (I’d grab the nearest guy just to make a pint) but the question is about human rights. Loving, consenting couples -should- be able to get married, yes, but that’s not what this is about. A favorite quote of mine, from Contact, is “Small moves, Ellie.” Knowing how the progress of human rights has been so ignorantly blocked can only lead us to be stronger and more stalwart in out psitions. Compassion, humanity, and civil rights need to be extended to everyone in the world (and this administration things those labeled “enemhy combatants” are exempt).

Let’s finally make change, people. It may not be perfect, but every step in the direction is a right step. Yes. We. Can.

Mar 2, 2008 at 9:43 pm · @Reply ·

Sonyl Nagale

Basically, the question is: a democrat, who has a change of being elected, to make small step in the right direction for our rights and will block anti-gay legislation.

OR: a republican to hold us back and regress our rights and support anti-gay legislation.

OR: an independent who may have our rights in mind, but has no chance of being elected.

Make your own decision as to what is appropriate. The plain fact that Obama is reaching out to the gay community proves that he is supportive of us and would not endorse any ani-gay legislation. Screw Bill Clinton. I don’t endorse parties, just people. And in my opinion, we must get away from McCain, the vitriolic politicking of the Republican party, the kickbacks, the dangers of a privately-controlled government. Obama’s campaign has 1 million donors, over $100 million from normal people. That’s PEOPLE power, not fundies or lobbyists or special interests. Hillary donated $5 million to her campaign, gained from overseas contracts she had Bill had, and refused to release her tax returns to prove where the money came from, and if it came from lobbyists, special interest groups, pork barrels, etc.

Obama’s not perfect. But at this stage in the game, he’s the best we have.

Continue to love and support each other. That’s all we can hope for. One day, everything will be ok.

Mar 2, 2008 at 9:57 pm · @Reply ·

Sonyl Nagale

(apologies for typos)

Mar 2, 2008 at 9:59 pm · @Reply ·

Brian Miller

Basically, the question is: a democrat, who has a change of being elected, to make small step in the right direction for our rights and will block anti-gay legislation.

OR: a republican to hold us back and regress our rights and support anti-gay legislation.

False choice.

The real choice is:

1) A Democrat who says he/she supports segregation with some rights for gays yet who does nothing about it or;

2) A Republican who wavers on gay issues and will do nothing.

When you look at what counts — actual votes in the Senate — McCain, Clinton and Obama have identical records on LGBTQ issues.

What I think about the current state of the political scene is NOT what is ideal, but what can make the most progress.

Can someone cite progress that’s been caused by such “political incrementalism?”

This has been the mantra since 1991 — yet no progress has been made.

Civil unions in Vermont were driven by a court case against the government taken to the state Supreme Court — not politicians’ actions.

Ditto for marriage in Massachusetts.

Legislation for ending the military’s anti-gay ban has been languishing in the House for years because Nancy Pelosi won’t allow it to go to a floor vote.

Not a single Democrat has even introduced the legislation in the Senate.

Martin Luther King didn’t call for “small steps.” He called for human dignity.

It’s high time that gay activists did the same thing and stopped apologizing for the dismal record of the Democratic Party.

Gender bending drag king conference coming up in October. Check it out!

Email me for our press packet and/or flyer.

Jul 21, 2008 at 9:49 am · @Reply ·

E Howard Bailey

JIHAD CANDIDATE . How long did it take Islam and their oil money to find a candidate for President of the United States ?

As long as it took them to place a Senator from Illinois and Minnesota ?

The same amount of time to create a large Muslim enclave in Detroit ?

The time it took them to build over 2,000 mosques in America ?

The same amount of time required to place radical wahabbist clerics in our military and prisons as â€˜chaplainsâ€™?

Find a candidate who can get away with lying about their father being a â€˜freedom fighterâ€™ when he was actually part of the most corrupt and violent government in Kenya â€™s history.

Find a candidate with close ties to The Nation of Islam and the violent Muslim overthrow in Africa , a candidate who is educated among white infidel Americans but hides his bitterness and anger behind a superficial toothy smile.

Find a candidate who changes his American name of Barry to the Muslim name of Barak Hussein Obama, and dares anyone to question his true ties under the banner of â€˜racismâ€™.

Nurture this candidate in an atmosphere of anti-white American teaching and surround him with Islamic teachers. Provide him with a bitter, racist, anti-white, anti-American wife, and supply him with Muslim middle east connections and Islamic monies.

Allow him to be clever enough to get away with his anti-white rhetoric and proclaim he will give $834 billion taxpayer dollars to the Muslim controlled United Nations for use in Africa .

Install your candidate in an atmosphere of deception because questioning him on any issue involving Africa or Islam would be seen as â€˜bigoted racismâ€™; two words too powerful to allow the citizenry to be informed of facts.

Allow your candidate to employ several black racist Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan followers as members of his Illinois Senatorial and campaign staffs.

Where is the bloodhound American â€˜free pressâ€™ who doggedly overturned every stone in the Watergate case?

Why havenâ€™t â€˜newsmenâ€™ pursued the 65 blatant lies told by this candidate during the Presidential primaries?

Where are the stories about this candidateâ€™s cousin and the Muslim butchery in Africa ? (WHOM OBAMA WENT TO KENYA TO CAMPAING FOR)

Why havenâ€™t the press regaled us with the long list of socialists and communists who have surrounded this â€˜out of nowhereâ€™ Democrat candidate or that his church re-printed the Hamas Manifesto in their bulletin, and that his â€˜close pastor friend and mentorâ€™ met with Middle East terrorist Moammar Gaddafi, (Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist Peopleâ€™s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)?

Why isnâ€™t the American press telling us this candidate is supported by every Muslim organization in the world?

Why isnâ€™t our media connecting the dots with Islam? There is enough strange, anti-American activity surrounding Barak Hussein Obama to peek the curiosity of any reporter.

WHERE IS OUR INVESTIGATIVE MEDIA!?

A formal plan for targeting America was devised three years after the Iranian revolution in 1982. The plan was summarized in a 1991 memorandum by Mohamed Akram, an operative of the global Muslim Brotherhood. â€˜The process of settlementâ€™ of Muslims in America , Akram explained, â€˜is a civilization jihad process.â€™ This means that members of the Brotherhood must understand that their work in â€˜America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Godâ€™s religion is made victorious over all other religions.â€™

There is terrorism we can see, smell and fear, but there is a new kind of terror invading The United States in the form of Sharia law and finance. Condoning it is civilization suicide. Middle East Muslims are coming to America in record numbers and building hate infidel mosques, buying our corporations, suing us for our traditions, but they and the whole subject of Islam is white noise leaving uninformed Americans about who and what is really peaceful.

Where is our investigative press?

Any criticism of Islam or their intentions, even though Islamic leaders state their intentions daily around the globe, brings-forth a volley of â€˜racistâ€™ from the left-wing Democrat crowd. Lies and deception behind a master plan – the ingredients for â€˜The Manchurian Candidateâ€™ or the placement of an anti-American President in our nationâ€™s White House?

Is it mere coincidence that an anti-capitalist run for President at the same time Islamic sharia finance and law is trying to make advancing strides into the United States ?

Is it mere coincidence this candidate wants to reduce our military at a time of global jihad from Muslim nations? Change for America?

What change? To become another â€˜nation of Islamâ€™?

Rich Carroll 2008 printed by permission

Aug 8, 2008 at 3:35 am · @Reply ·

Evin

we do not need a jigaboo as our president – what the hell is everyone thinking?????